According to many the date of the flood was around 2304 BC. From then to now was 4311 years.

I plugged in the following numbers:Starting year 0000Ending year 4311 (total time from flood)Starting population of 6Growth rate of 0.00484Note: The growth rate was adjusted to allow for a population close to todays present population of 6,630,000,000 as a starting reference.

Those numbers from above produced a population of 6,575,838,439 in 4311 years. (close to todays numbers.)

I then did a calculation for 2 people (Adam and Eve) and used 6,000 years.The results were:Population in 6000 years = 762,990,355,115

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture. Evolution seems to have another flaw.

According to many the date of the flood was around 2304 BC. From then to now was 4311 years.

I plugged in the following numbers:Starting year 0000Ending year 4311 (total time from flood)Starting population of 6Growth rate of 0.00484Note: The growth rate was adjusted to allow for a population close to todays present population of 6,630,000,000 as a starting reference.

Those numbers from above produced a population of 6,575,838,439 in 4311 years. (close to todays numbers.)

I then did a calculation for 2 people (Adam and Eve) and used 6,000 years.The results were:Population in 6000 years = 762,990,355,115

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture. Evolution seems to have another flaw.

Problem 1. 1.2% growth is far higher than it has been for most of history. Modern agriculture and medical practices are the main reasons the earth's population has been able to grow so much.

Problem 2. Depending on the timeline you use, you wind up with absurdly low population totals for historical events.

With 6 people ~4000 years ago the great pyramid in egypt (~3800 years old) would be build with only a handful of people on earth.

Basically, it is naive to assume a linear growth of populations. Populations don't ever grow in an arithmetic fashion. They grow according to the possibilities in their habitat. We can see this all around us. If the population of flies grew arithmetically, the planet would soon be covered in a mile-thick layer of flies.

The reason that the human population appears to have grown in a linear fashion during the last century or so, is that we have been able to extend out possibilities. As we see demonstrated in the most tragical way, this doesn't work out everywhere. In some areas, famines and wars work to severely limit the population.

Problem 1. 1.2% growth is far higher than it has been for most of history. Modern agriculture and medical practices are the main reasons the earth's population has been able to grow so much.

Then how would you explain the growth rates exceeding 3% in some of the most impoverished countries in the world? Those figures suggest that modern technology and medicine aren't as big of factors as you claim. Nonetheless, a slower growth rate at certain points in history would not have presented a problem. All you would need is an average, not a constant, growth rate of 0.5% based on a biblical timeline. (See the link below)

Problem 2. Depending on the timeline you use, you wind up with absurdly low population totals for historical events.

You end up with absurdly low population totals because of the assumptions in your math. If you read Genesis 10 and 11 you would find that the population grew rapidly in the years immediately after the flood.

data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s command to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbe fruitful and multiply and fill the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Genesis 9:1).

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in ShemÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10Ã¢â‚¬â€œ24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.http://www.creationo...nt/view/393/#f9

I assume you know that archaeologists have a few events going on then.

So according to such equations, how many people were in Egypt and China and the Americas in the century that followed? When did the line of Pharaoh's begin according to the creationist timeline? Did the Pharoah's survive the flood? Was the Great Pyramid (around 2550 BC) built before or after the flood? If after, who was around to build it? If before, can you find evidence that it has ever been in a flood? Thanks...

here are a few dates of interest.

* 2217Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2193 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Nomadic invasions of Akkad. * 2200 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Sixth dynasty of Egypt ended. * c. 2190 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Caused by a severe drought, Old Kingdom finished in Ancient Egypt. Start of First Intermediate Period. 7thÃ¢â‚¬â€œ10th Dynasties. * 2181 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Egypt: Pharaoh Nitocris died. End of Sixth Dynasty, start of Seventh Dynasty. Pharaoh Neferkara I started to reign. * 2180 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Old Kingdom ends in Ancient Egypt. First Intermediate Period of Egypt starts. * c. 2180 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Akkadian Empire fell under attack by the Guti (Mesopotamia), a mountain people from the northeast. * 2173 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Egypt: End of Seventh Dynasty, start of Eighth Dynasty. * 2160 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Egypt: Pharaoh Neferirkara died. End of Eighth Dynasty, start of Ninth Dynasty. Pharaoh Neferkare started to reign. * c. 2160 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Beginning of Middle Minoan period in Crete. * c. 2150Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2030 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Gilgamesh epic was written. * c. 2150 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Lagash. * c. 2144 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Gudea, the ruler (ensi) of the city of Lagash, started to reign. * 2138 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Babylon: A solar eclipse on 9 May and a lunar eclipse on 24 May occurred and are believed to be the double eclipse that took place 23 years after the ascension of king Shulgi of Babylon by those holding to the long chronology. * 2130 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Egypt: End of Ninth Dynasty, start of Tenth Dynasty. Ninth Dynasty wars in Egypt started. * c. 2125 BCÃ¢â‚¬â€œ2055 BC BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ "Model of a house and garden, from Thebes". Eleventh dynasty of Egypt. It is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. * 2124 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Gudea, the ruler (ensi) of the city of Lagash, died. * c. 2120 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Votive statue of Gudea, from Lagash (modern Telloh, Iraq) was made. It is now in Musee du Louvre, Paris. * 2119Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2113 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ (middle chronology), Utu-hegal, first king of the third dynasty of Ur. * 2116Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2110 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Uruk-Gutian war. * 2112 BCÃ¢â‚¬â€œ2095 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Sumerian campaigns of Ur-Nammu. * 2104Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2103 BC Ã¢â‚¬â€ Date of the Biblical flood according to the Hebrew Calendar.http://en.wikipedia....22nd_century_BC

Then how would you explain the growth rates exceeding 3% in some of the most impoverished countries in the world? Those figures suggest that modern technology and medicine aren't as big of factors as you claim.

Most third world countries receive food and monetary aid from first world countries. Modern technology and medicine sent from other countries is a significant reason those populations are able to grow as fast as they are.

Nonetheless, a slower growth rate at certain points in history would not have presented a problem. All you would need is an average, not a constant, growth rate of 0.5% based on a biblical timeline. (See the link below)You end up with absurdly low population totals because of the assumptions in your math. If you read Genesis 10 and 11 you would find that the population grew rapidly in the years immediately after the flood.

data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s command to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbe fruitful and multiply and fill the earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Genesis 9:1).

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in ShemÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10Ã¢â‚¬â€œ24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.http://www.creationo...nt/view/393/#f9

I couldn't find a date for babel on that site. If we use the data from this site and the timeline from AIG

Growth: .037 or 3.7%

Population using AIG timeline and 3.7% growthGlobal Flood2348 BC - 6 people on earth

Tower Babel2242 BC - 282 people on earth

Still a problem for early biblical events unless you think 300 people built a pyramid-sized structure. Depending on when you think the growth rate dropped back down to a more realistic number the early population problem might remain for other events as well.

The original post picks one point at -2000 (with questionable data involving only 3 reproducing couples on earth) and another point at +2000 and finds a growth rate that connects the two. Then complains that the growth rate doesn't fit other points beside -2000 and +2000. There's no reason why such a rate should fit. The +2000 data is so far from the historical norm that any equation including it is going to be very skewed. World population is simply not able to be modeled accurately with a single equation when you include obvious outliers like modern times.

If you look at actual data of global population you'll find that it's very close to 0% growth for most of recorded history (.08% not .5% for a 3000 year period from -2000 to +1000). That's as expected because a population can only increase when there's an excess of space or resources. That's why the idea that an old earth should result in a trillion human population is incorrect. Population should expand until starvation (lack of resources) or disease (lack of living space) interferes. The earth isn't covered by humans because starvation or disease killed people when they became too numerous. Same reason why the earth isn't covered by rabbits or bacteria or anything else.

If creationists have different historical population numbers please provide a link, I'd be interested in seeing how they differ for the middle dates between proposed flood date and modern times. If creationist have similar numbers then that's an acknowledgment that population growth was basically flat for most of history prior to modern times.

Then how would you explain the growth rates exceeding 3% in some of the most impoverished countries in the world? Those figures suggest that modern technology and medicine aren't as big of factors as you claim.

Ehr, why do I need to explain them? Are you suggesting they don't exist? However, they are the result of unchecked growth. When infant mortality is high, people have lots of children, in the hopes that some will survive. You know, in order to pass on their genes .

Nonetheless, a slower growth rate at certain points in history would not have presented a problem. All you would need is an average, not a constant, growth rate of 0.5% based on a biblical timeline. (See the link below)

Yes, it represents a huge problem for the original argument. In the opening post, Trilobyte attempted to falsify evolution by pointing out that the present annual population growth, when extrapolated backwards, converged on zero (or more appropriately, on two ), a few thousand years ago.

Obviously, if we accept that the rate can be significantly different at any time, the argument falls.

Once we realize that population growth rates can change according to whatever demands (be those environmental or God's requests), we must also realize that the average rate of any particular period cannot be extrapolated outside that period.

Most third world countries receive food and monetary aid from first world countries. Modern technology and medicine sent from other countries is a significant reason those populations are able to grow as fast as they are.

If that were true then first world countries should be growing at an even greater rate since they are the source of medicine and technology. However, countries like the United States and Australia are growing at rates just a little less than 1%

I couldn't find a date for babel on that site. If we use the data from this site and the timeline from AIG

Growth: .037 or 3.7%

Population using AIG timeline and 3.7% growthGlobal Flood2348 BC - 6 people on earth

Tower Babel2242 BC - 282 people on earth

Still a problem for early biblical events unless you think 300 people built a pyramid-sized structure. Depending on when you think the growth rate dropped back down to a more realistic number the early population problem might remain for other events as well.

I don't think were on the same page yet. We have 40 years as an average for a generation, 8.53 average of children per couple in the first two generations, and the everyone from the first two generations still alive (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc.) That means our population doubles every 19 years. There's no way to get such a low number when you consider these factors. Your population should be closer 3,000.

To my Danish friend;

Ehr, why do I need to explain them? A

Because they don't fit the idea that modern advancements are the primary factors behind population growth. It seems as though populations grow despite technology in many cases. My example of underdeveloped countries overproducing being one of them. That's significant because it means that the, 'financial and medical aid to the third world,' argument is not a good explanation for the growth that should have taken place over the last million years.

Once we realize that population growth rates can change according to whatever demands (be those environmental or God's requests), we must also realize that the average rate of any particular period cannot be extrapolated outside that period.

No source that makes this argument does that. It's always a calculated figure and not an extrapolated one. For example, Henry Morris's figure of 0.5% was a quarter of the modern population growth rate at that time. This was done to account for wars, plagues, famines, etc. Even still he was careful to specify that this was only an average and not a constant.

Listen folks: We can discuss demographics till the cows come home. Why do poor countries have a higher population growth than rich countries, what were the population growths throughout history, etc.

All good and interesting questions, most of which have goos answers. However, the fact remains that no population ever just grows arithmetically. And therefore you cannot infer anything about the age of the world by extrapolating populations.

I'll make it abundantly clear to you: Try to use that formula on humans, flies, rats, elephants, and giant turtles. You will get vastly different results, yet all live in the same world.

For the discussion of evolution and genesis, it is simply a non-issue.

If that were true then first world countries should be growing at an even greater rate since they are the source of medicine and technology. However, countries like the United States and Australia are growing at rates just a little less than 1%

No, first world countries should not be growing at a greater rate. Birth control usage is higher in first world countries than in third world countries.

Population growth requires 2 things.

1. Have kids2. Keep those kids alive

First world countries do #2 very well but tend to make birth control decisions that lead to #1 not happening as often.

Third world countries do #1 but without help from first world countries would have problems with #2.

I don't think were on the same page yet. We have 40 years as an average for a generation, 8.53 average of children per couple in the first two generations, and the everyone from the first two generations still alive (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc.) That means our population doubles every 19 years. There's no way to get such a low number when you consider these factors. Your population should be closer 3,000.

I used the site presented in the OP to do the calculations. Lets do the math by hand using AIG's timeline and a population that doubles every 19 years. I'll show numbers for both a starting population of 6 (only noahs sons having kids) and 8 (noah+sons still having kids)

AIG timelineLarry Pierce has pointed out that according to some ancient records, Egypt began in 2188 BC.2 This date is after the Babel dispersion and is logical in the biblical model.

Depending on when you think the population stopped doubling every 19 years the low poplulation problem extends to later events as well.

To my Danish friend;Because they don't fit the idea that modern advancements are the primary factors behind population growth. It seems as though populations grow despite technology in many cases. My example of underdeveloped countries overproducing being one of them. That's significant because it means that the, 'financial and medical aid to the third world,' argument is not a good explanation for the growth that should have taken place over the last million years.

Explained above by the difference in birth control usage.

No source that makes this argument does that. It's always a calculated figure and not an extrapolated one. For example, Henry Morris's figure of 0.5% was a quarter of the modern population growth rate at that time. This was done to account for wars, plagues, famines, etc. Even still he was careful to specify that this was only an average and not a constant.

.5% annual growth may be a quarter of modern growth, but it's 5 to 10 times higher than any pre-modern era. As an example, the period from year 0 to year 1500AD had a growth rate of ~.06%. 1000BC to 1500AD had a growth rate of ~.08%.

If creationists have their own estimates for population numbers please provide a link, I'd be very interested in how many people they think lived in the time period between 1000BC and 1500AD.

It's hard to overstate just how significant a difference modern agriculture techniques have made and how much that skews any attempt to merge growth rates between time periods.

According to many the date of the flood was around 2304 BC. From then to now was 4311 years.

I plugged in the following numbers:Starting year 0000Ending year 4311 (total time from flood)Starting population of 6Growth rate of 0.00484Note: The growth rate was adjusted to allow for a population close to todays present population of 6,630,000,000 as a starting reference.

Those numbers from above produced a population of 6,575,838,439 in 4311 years. (close to todays numbers.)

I then did a calculation for 2 people (Adam and Eve) and used 6,000 years.The results were:Population in 6000 years = 762,990,355,115

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture. Evolution seems to have another flaw.

Interesting. Does the calculator take into account mortality rates? The rates for infant and adult mortality were much higher back then.

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture. Evolution seems to have another flaw.

Evolution is a fact it happens, the subject is not even under debate in scientific circles, putting figures into a calculator to try and get answers is not accurate at all so is irrelevant. Take the population of the Philippines for instance in 1890 the population was approx 3 million just 118 years later the population is 90 million get the picture there can be wild fluctuations you are grasping at straws if you think this will dent the truth of evolution.

Evolution is a fact it happens, the subject is not even under debate in scientific circles, putting figures into a calculator to try and get answers is not accurate at all so is irrelevant. Take the population of the Philippines for instance in 1890 the population was approx 3 million just 118 years later the population is 90 million get the picture there can be wild fluctuations you are grasping at straws if you think this will dent the truth of evolution.

it isnt a fact and it doesnt happen the way you think it does! there is maissive debate in scientific circles about it. havent you heard? they are talking about banning evolution from schools and teaching the kids about why the debate happened in the first place Christian scientists that are trying to uncover the truth out way tthe other secular ones in thier ivory towers

it isnt a fact and it doesnt happen the way you think it does! there is maissive debate in scientific circles about it. havent you heard? they are talking about banning evolution from schools and teaching the kids about why the debate happened in the first place Christian scientists that are trying to uncover the truth out way tthe other secular ones in thier ivory towers

Alas, it does not work that way. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not like I can come up with a new hypothesis in science and get only around 1% of scientists who directly work in the field to consider it to be a theory and then proceed to overturn standard education. If I truly want to promote my hypothesis to theory I need to convince far more of them with research and publications. Also, my research has to be about my hypothesis not about problems with a competing theory. Once my hypothesis is promoted to a theory if its explanatory power is stronger than previously believed theories and it holds to scientific rigor then my theory becomes the most likely explanation and I get my name in a textbook until a better more robust theory or amendments to my theory come along. This is why String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity is not taught alongside the Standard Model until graduate school for most physics students. Physicists are very sure that the Standard Model is a correct sub theory of a broader theory Ã¢â‚¬â€œ however, whether or not Strings or Loops or something else describes this broader theory is not even close to being established.

According to many the date of the flood was around 2304 BC. From then to now was 4311 years.

I plugged in the following numbers:Starting year 0000Ending year 4311 (total time from flood)Starting population of 6Growth rate of 0.00484Note: The growth rate was adjusted to allow for a population close to todays present population of 6,630,000,000 as a starting reference.

Those numbers from above produced a population of 6,575,838,439 in 4311 years. (close to todays numbers.)

I then did a calculation for 2 people (Adam and Eve) and used 6,000 years.The results were:Population in 6000 years = 762,990,355,115

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture. Evolution seems to have another flaw.

It is easy to see that treating population growth as linear or exponential is incorrect. Consider two sets of data (1, 200) and (2005, 6453) of the form (t, P) where t is time in years and P is population in the millions. So in 1 A.D. there were roughly 200 million people on Earth and in 2005 there where 6.453 billion people on Earth. Treating these as points on a line that represents population levels versus year yields the value of world population for 1850 as nearly 6 billion. In 1850 the world population was around 1 billion so it clearly is not linear. What about exponentially? Again with the same two data points we get a population around 4.6 billion for 1850. Obviously population growth cannot be modeled as simple systems.

I would guess that a more appropriate model for population growth would involve an oscillating function that hugs some kind of increasing function like a positive hyperbolic sine curve or exponential curve or the like. The oscillating part of the function would be reversely damped until a certain period where it would become regularly damped. In this model the troughs of the function would symbolize global decrease in population but since the oscillating function is climbing along an increasing function the trough from a certain year might be higher than a peak from a previous year. I would guess that starting around 1750 the oscillation is nearly damped completely and our curve smoothes out to a linear fit.

Alas, it does not work that way. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not like I can come up with a new hypothesis in science and get only around 1% of scientists who directly work in the field to consider it to be a theory and then proceed to overturn standard education. If I truly want to promote my hypothesis to theory I need to convince far more of them with research and publications. Also, my research has to be about my hypothesis not about problems with a competing theory. Once my hypothesis is promoted to a theory if its explanatory power is stronger than previously believed theories and it holds to scientific rigor then my theory becomes the most likely explanation and I get my name in a textbook until a better more robust theory or amendments to my theory come along. This is why String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity is not taught alongside the Standard Model until graduate school for most physics students. Physicists are very sure that the Standard Model is a correct sub theory of a broader theory Ã¢â‚¬â€œ however, whether or not Strings or Loops or something else describes this broader theory is not even close to being established.

You are wrong.ItÃ‚Â´s exactly the flawed points of a theory that make us searching for another one, and TOE is rich in flawed points.TOE is not discarded by scientific community because of its commitment with atheism.

You are wrong.ItÃ‚Â´s exactly the flawed points of a theory that make us searching for another one, and TOE is rich in flawed points.TOE is not discarded by scientific community because of its commitment with atheism.

The flawed points of a theory might motivate research towards a new hypothesis however those flaws are not a basis of support for any other hypothesis. So the flaws that you think you see with TOE do not support the hypothesis of intelligent design. If science worked that way we would have never gotten anywhere with it. In order for an idea to become a theory it must be able to stand on its own.

I am not sure which Ã¢â‚¬Å“commitment to atheismÃ¢â‚¬Â you think the science community has. The science community I belong to is filled with religious people Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in fact, they outnumber the atheists by a wide margin. In my experience this margin is typical among science communities. Maybe its different in biology communities but I doubt it.

I am not sure which Ã¢â‚¬Å“commitment to atheismÃ¢â‚¬Â you think the science community has. The science community I belong to is filled with religious people Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in fact, they outnumber the atheists by a wide margin. In my experience this margin is typical among science communities. Maybe its different in biology communities but I doubt it.

Of course almost all atheists accept the theory of evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. What other rational explanation is there? Typically atheists believe that the world is rational because so far all physical processes that have been explained have natural origins. Because of this appeal to rationalization an atheist will generally accept the consensus of mainstream science. However, if another naturalistic process was discovered that superseded evolution the atheist would be forced to accept this new rational explanation. An atheist believes that supernatural explanations appeal to the irrational and are therefore not valid solutions to practical problems.